Media Reporting on Australia’s Offshore Asylum Policy:
The Case of Human Rights Violations on Nauru
University of Amsterdam
Graduate School of Communication
MSc Communication Science: Political Communication
Master’s Thesis
Petya Tsekova
Student ID: 11107960
Supervisor: dr. mr. J.H.P. (Joost) van Spanje
Date: 03.02.2017
Abstract
For the past few months, Australia has been discussed on the agenda of many human rights organisation and international media outlets for its controversial offshore asylum policy, as well as its poor treatment of refugees. In August 2016, a large number of reports disclosing human rights violations on one of Australia’s offshore asylum centres on Nauru were leaked to The Guardian. This research assessed the media reporting on this case between Australian and British press, using a dataset of 238 newspaper articles for the time period of four months. The analysis showed contrasting differences between the Australian and the British newspapers in their implementations of thematic and episodic frames, as well as with some collective action ones, when covering this topic. Additionally, left-wing press was found to report considerably more on the Nauru topic than right-wing newspapers. This study concludes with a discussion about the implications and limitations that the media reporting on Australia’s offshore policy - most specifically the Nauru case, might have on both society and research.
Keywords: Australia, Nauru, offshore asylum policy, Australian newspapers, British newspapers, left-wing press, right-wing press, human rights violations, refugees, content analysis
Introduction
According to the UNHCR, there are more than 65.3 million forcibly displaced people around the world (UNHCR, 2015). Although the number of refugees globally has significantly increased over the past years (Fazel & Danesh, 2005), postwar migration to wealthier countries is not a new phenomenon (Loescher, 1996).
A country founded on migration itself, but currently facing challenges with the global refugee crisis, is Australia (Cully & Pejoski, 2012). Since the beginning of the century, refugees from war and conflict zones have tried to reach Australia and seek asylum, embarking on risky journeys through the Pacific (Manderson, 2013). More than a thousand of these so-called ‘boat people’ have drowned at sea, while the rest have been detained to offshore centers located on remote islands such as the Christmas Island, Manus Island and Nauru (Taylor & Brown, 2010).
Australia has been developing its offshore asylum policy and strict border controls concerning illegal migrants for decades, which has been legitimised as ‘The Pacific Solution’ in 2001 (Magner, 2004; Dickson, 2015). Meanwhile, this offshore policy has been referred to as controversial by a large number of human rights organisations, Western governments and international media (Fleay & Hoffman, 2014). Various reports of human rights violations, particularly towards women and children have emerged on multiple occasions (Isaacs, 2015; Essex, 2016).
However, it was not until 2016 when the international attention shifted more closely to this matter. One particularly controversial case appeared to be the island of Nauru, and Australia’s
asylum processing centre established there in 2001 (Fleay & Hoffman, 2014). The secrecy surrounding Nauru, the implemented visa restrictions on all journalists as well as the concealed access for human rights organisations to the island, added to this contention (Dickson, 2015).
Despite the lack of information, some international media outlets such as the British newspaper, The Guardian, have managed to report on the minimal information available regarding this asylum controversy on Nauru (The Guardian, 2016). Over the past decades, studies have found The Guardian to be one of the most liberal newspapers worldwide, closely investigating stories about refugees and their human rights (Kaye, 1998; Gabrielatos & Baker, 2008; KhosraviNik, 2010). Thus, it is not coincidental that in August 2016, more than 2000 reports on human rights violations in Australia’s offshore centre on Nauru were leaked to The
Guardian.
“The Nauru files: 2000 leaked reports reveal scale of abuse of children in Australian offshore detention” read the headline on 10th
August 2016 (The Guardian, 2016).
The revealed reports detailed information on violent mistreatment of asylum seekers at Australia’s processing centre on Nauru (The Guardian, 2016). Inevitably, that has drawn a significant amount of media attention to the current situation there, as well as to Australia’s offshore asylum policy in general.
This research aims at making a comparison between the responses of the Australian and British media outlets on Australia’s offshore centre on Nauru. The main reason for the selection of these two countries lies in their close economic, political, cultural and historic ties (Höllinger & Haller, 1990). Scholars have found that such ties between countries lead to more
press coverage of one another (Wu, 2000). Moreover, Britain is currently one of the European countries facing similar struggles and scrutiny in regards to its national asylum policies and treatment of refugees (Burnett, 2013). Since the reports were leaked to the British press, and Australia’s offshore policy is in the spotlight, the reaction of the press on both domestic (Australian) and non-domestic (British) levels will be examined in this study.
A distinguished approach in media reporting is framing, where frames, unlike priming or agenda-setting, generally set the guidelines on how the public discusses a specific policy issue (Semetko & Valkenburg, 2000). Frames, which are employed by established media, are also known to have a great impact on shaping public opinion (Chong & Druckman, 2007). In particular, issues concerning refugees’ migration are diversely framed in media, where discrepancies occur on national and international levels (Austin & Fozdar, 2016). Therefore, this research will focus on the different types of frames used within popular media outlets in Australia and Britain when reporting on Australia’s offshore centre at Nauru. In addition to looking into already defined frames, this research will also examine whether left-wing or right-wing media report more on that matter.
Consequently, this study seeks to answer the following research question: How do
Australian and British media report on Australia’s offshore asylum processing centre on Nauru?
This study will focus on three dimensions. The first is the usage of thematic and episodic frames. It is argued that the former may be applied to picture the general consequences of a policy, whereas the latter may be used to defend a political strategy while protecting governments from responsibility(Iyengar, 1990).
The second central aspect of this research will cover the usage of collective action frames, which are typically employed in order to motivate society to act on a certain matter (Benford & Snow, 2000).
Thirdly, it is argued that policy controversies and human rights’ violations are more reported on by left-wing media outlets (Moghaddam & Vuksanovic, 1990), which is another aspect that this study will examine.
For these purposes, I will start by reviewing some main studies done on thematic, episodic and collective action media frames. Additionally, where relevant, I will look into the framing cultures of both countries in question, as well as the differences in amount of reporting between left-wing media and right-wing one.
Then, I will conduct a content analysis of six national (print) newspapers in both Australia and Britain. The reason for choosing to look at print press, rather than other types of media, is based on the readership cultures of both countries. The press has a strong traditional impact and is regarded as the second most credible source for news among Britons (BBC Globescan Poll, 2016). In contrast, Australians are found to be distrustful towards all media however, newspapers still remain relatively widely read among its public (Roy Morgan Research, 2014). Therefore, it is essential to examine newspapers, as they remain an important source of information for citizens in both countries.
The scientific relevance of this research lays in the importance of media reporting and particularly framing of asylum policies – as well as its effect on the public opinion. There are various types of frames, which may be employed in order to have different effects on people’s perceptions (Chong & Druckman, 2007). It is argued that news reporting facilitates the formation of stereotypes about certain minorities (Kroon et al., 2016). With this in mind, it is
important to note that foreign and asylum policies are typically reported within the same rhetoric and may have a similar impact on the collective opinion (Richardson, 2014).
Lastly, I will discuss the limitations of the current study, the implications of its findings as well as avenues for future research.
Theory
Gamson and Modigliani (1987) define framing as “a central organizing idea or story line that provides meaning to an unfolding strip of events weaving a connection among them. The frame suggests what the controversy is about, the essence of the issue” (p. 143). Additionally, it is applied “in such a way as to promote a particular problem definition, causal interpretation, moral evaluation and/or treatment recommendation” (Entman, 1993, p. 52). Further to his definition, Entman (1993) argues that news framing has a strong impact when reporting on political problems and their potential solutions. Additionally, Chong and Druckman (2007) point out that different frames purposefully shed light at distinct aspects of a political issue. Therefore, frames can shape the communication of different politically aligned media, especially when a certain policy matter is in question (Robison & Mullinix, 2016).
Thematic and episodic frames
Within the concept of media frames, Iyengar (1990) observes two types, which are the
episodic and thematic ones. According to his study an episodic frame exemplifies a particular
issue, whereas the thematic frame is more analytical and contextual to the general matter (Iyengar, 1990). Previous studies point out that episodic and thematic frames are mostly used
in media reporting of political issues and policies (e.g. Schon & Rein, 1994; de Vreese et al., 2001; Scheufele, 2011). According to Gross (2008) in order to highlight national policies, the use of episodic frames has been found to be more emotionally engaging to the public than the use of thematic ones. Aarøe (2011) further argues that episodic frames elicit stronger emotional responses among readers mainly in support for a specific policy. Additionally, episodic frames were associated with portraying a political problem as an isolated incident rather than being indicative of a general issue (Iyengar, 1990). In particular, Iyengar (1990) argues that episodic frames divert public attention from the actual political problem and can therefore protect governments from responsibility. Similarly, Spence (2010) finds that episodic frames make people less politically mobilised. He further argues that public support for a particular policy increases, while any sympathy or trust towards a group or an individual presented in a story decreases (Spence, 2010). In support of these findings, Mastin et al. (2007) reason that episodic frames are designed to portray a problem as an individual rather than a societal one.
In contrast to episodic framing, Gross (2008) argues that the use of thematic frames in reporting political issues is to appeal to the public and its moral attributions. Furthermore, thematic frames are also frequently employed towards diplomatic evaluations of foreign policies while abstaining from negative stereotyping or polarisation often occurring in reporting of national ones (Papacharissi & Oliveira, 2008).
In light of Australia’s offshore asylum policy and the previous studies related to these frames as well as the media reporting on policy matters, both thematic and episodic frames are expected to be in use by the press in Australia and Britain. On the one hand, Australian citizens and its government are directly affected in terms of economic, legal and ethical aspects by their country’s offshore policy (Fleay & Hoffman, 2014). Thus, it is assumed that
in order to relate to its public’s interests as well as to avoid offending officials responsible for the policy, Australian newspapers use more often episodic frames (Cooper et al., 2016). On the other hand, the British public being geographically and politically distant from this issue is less emotionally engaged with Australia’s offshore policy in general. Therefore, it is argued that in such instances thematic frames have a stronger influence as opposed to episodic, in order to appeal to British people’s morality and interests (Aaroe, 2011). Thus, the following is assumed:
H1: British press uses more thematic frames when reporting on Australia’s offshore asylum centre on Nauru whereas Australian press uses more episodic frames.
In addition to previous studies, Hart (2010) researched the usage of thematic frames simultaneously with collective action ones in reporting on climate change policies. In his study, he found their strong impact together in inspiring social movements especially against controversial policies (Hart, 2010). Therefore, based on his theory, the current study on Australia’s offshore asylum centre at Nauru will examine the use of collective action frames in addition to the thematic and episodic ones.
Collective action frames
In democratic societies, free press plays an important role to inspire political and social movements, typically concerning some form of moral injustice (Polletta & Jasper, 2001). In such instances, the media often use the so-called collective action frames (Benford & Snow, 2000). Research shows that collective action frames in news are ultimately employed for mobilising social action and are also referred to as movement frames (e.g. Hercus, 1999; Vicari, 2010; Kubal, 1998). The categories for collective action frames, in use for this
research, are selected according to the ones proposed by Benford & Snow (2000). Therefore, the following frames will be compared – victim and intruder, diagnostic and prognostic, and
motivational and gain/loss.
Scholars (e.g. Van Gorp, 2007; Benford & Snow, 1993; Kubal, 1998) find that the usage of collective action frames in a particular country is directly influenced by this country’s cultural values. In the case of the Australian and the British press, research shows that both share similarity in reporting particularly when focusing on their own policy agendas (Blackmore & Thomson, 2004). However, there are certain differences that may influence the coverage between Australian and British media namely in terms of their media ownership, readership culture and public’s trust in journalism (Luke, 1999). For instance, Griffen-Foley (2010) finds that the Australian media is modelled on the American. Therefore, a particular media relies primarily on advertising revenue from large corporations and may be influenced by their views (Griffe-Foley, 2010). This may also affect the way in which the news content is framed (Arsenault & Castells, 2008). Furthermore, each country reflects on different political aspects of a given policy, and it is found that media tends to focus their reporting in terms of this context (Lancaster et al., 2015). Hence, it is expected that in order to capture public’s attention on these certain policy matters, different media frames are expected to be used within the press in the two countries.
Among the most commonly used collective action frames, especially in regards to asylum seekers, are the victim and intruder ones (Van Gorp, 2005; Kitzinger, 2007). The portrayal of asylum seekers as intruders and a threat to the national identity have frequently been found to dominate both Australian and British media rhetoric (Austin & Fozdar, 2016). However, Thørbjornsrud (2015) argues that the migration issue is strategically framed in different countries in order to mobilise its public in accordance to its perceptions. Additionally, Horsti
(2007) pointed out that the frequency and extremity to which the intruder frame is used differs per country, as media typically reflect upon national ideals in conjunction to citizens’ encounters with migrants in a state.
In the case of Australia, Maley (2001) argues that the Australian press is more negative when framing migration issues than the British press. Austin & Fozdar (2016) link that to Australia’s relatively recent history with the White Act, which terminated only in 1973. This policy’s purpose has been developed in order to insulate Australia from migrants of different ethnicity than the white (Jupp, 1995). Since the Act was abolished 40 years ago, its influence over the values of the current generation is still found to be present among people with liberal and conservative mindsets (Jupp, 1995; Austin & Fozdar, 2016). Austin & Fozdar (2016) further add that Australian government’s rhetoric generally portrays migrants as intruders, which in turn influences the media framing. This is also supported by Thorbjornsrud (2015) study, where he finds that media stakeholders deliberately convey politicians’ messages about illegal migrants through the use of specific intruder frames.
Additionally, migration has been portrayed as a threat in Australia’s media discourse, with refugees arriving through people smugglers as intruders (Maley, 2001). In his study, Maley (2001) further argues that the victim and security aspects are fairly neglected in the news and Australian media presents migrants primarily as a threat. Specifically, after the 9/11 attacks in New York, the Australian press has associated many criminal acts with immigration (Aly, 2007; Collins, 2007; Hodge, 2015). Also, Sheafer & Gabay (2009) have found that some news frames used by national media are employed in order to influence international frames in support of their own policy, by being either extremely negative or positive.
In light of framing migrants in the British press, studies have found that the intruder rhetoric is also often used to portray them (Van Gorp, 2010). However, the framing in the UK press was additionally found to be highly dependent on key-events surrounding specific migration issues (Kroon et al., 2016). Therefore, British press is also argued to frequently present immigrants as victims (Khosravinik, 2009). Vossen et al. (2016) pointed out that when British press uses the victim frame, they use dramatic language referring to migrants as ‘helpless’, ‘pitiful’ and as a ‘responsibility of the West’ (Vossen et al., 2016). Based on the above findings, it can be assumed that the use of intruder frames on migration topics is more salient in the Australian reporting than within the British. Therefore, the following hypotheses are formed:
H2a: Australian press uses more intruder frames when reporting on its offshore asylum centre on Nauru than the British press does.
H2b: Australian press uses less victim frames when reporting on its offshore asylum centre on Nauru than the British press does.
Other widely used collective action frames are the diagnostic and prognostic ones (Benford & Snow, 2000). According to the definition of Benford & Snow (2000), a
diagnostic frame examines whether there is a mention in the text of any political, social
and/or economic causes in relation to a particular policy matter.
Additionally, media also uses frames to portray possible or hypothetical solutions in case of a policy problem, which according to Benford and Snow (2000) is also known as
prognostic frames. Lombardo and Meier (2006) argue that the usage of both diagnostic and
finds that they are commonly referred to as opposites, where the diagnostic is the ‘problem
definition’ versus the prognostic that is the ‘solution’ (Kroon et al., 2016). In their study,
which examines EU gender policies, Lombardo and Meier (2006) further find that policy-makers use more diagnostic frames rather than prognostic. Additionally, Haunss (2007) argues that diagnostic frames can attribute responsibility to a particular institutional body. Moreover, research has found that prognostic frames inspire action among less concerned participants on a certain issue (Wahlström et al., 2013). Since the British public is assumed to be less engaged with the issues surrounding Australia’s asylum offshore centre on Nauru and Australia is directly linked to this controversy, the following hypotheses are formed:
H3a: Australian press uses more diagnostic frames when reporting on its offshore asylum centre on Nauru than British press does.
H3b: Australian press uses less prognostic frames when reporting on its offshore asylum centre on Nauru than British press does.
In addition to the already defined collective action frames, research distinguishes between
gain and loss as another set of frames in inspiring social movements (Benford & Snow,
2000). Unlike the contrast frames discussed above, gain and loss are frequently found to co-occur in media reporting (e.g. Benford & Snow, 2000; O’Keefe, 2007; Ash & Schmierbach, 2013). One of the main reasons is because the loss frame has a much higher effect on public opinion, especially regarding migration issues (Ash & Schmierbach, 2013). Concurrently, the
gain frame is found to be hardly effective unless it coexists with the loss one (De Dreu &
McCusker, 1997). Therefore, the gain and loss frames are routinely employed as one frame (De Dreau et al, 1994). Additionally, according to O’Keefe (2007), the gain/loss frames usually portray advantages and disadvantages on a more personal level in order to awaken a
particular community to react. Other research adds that these frames motivate a certain group of people on a more personal level (De Dreu & McCusker, 1997). At the same time, Levin et al. (1998) argue that a collective action frame such as the motivational one is found to inspire society as a whole on a more abstract level than the gain/loss ones do. In their study, Levin et al. (1998) point out that motivational frames have the greatest impact on encouraging social and even global responses. Furthermore, Benford & Snow (2000) connect motivational framing to provide an answer to why a society or a particular country needs to get involved into another’s national affairs. Therefore, it can be argued that gain/loss and motivational frames both inspire responses but occur separately, where the former is more personal to a community and the latter is more general to society.
Thus, it is assumed that in the case of Australia’s offshore processing centre on Nauru, Australians are directly affected by this topic, where their media refers to gain or losses for their citizens. In contrast, the British public is more concerned with the general issue of refugees and the social injustice as a whole. Based on these findings and assumptions, the fourth hypotheses are formed:
H4a: Australian press uses more gain/loss frames when reporting on its offshore asylum centre on Nauru than the British press does.
H4b: Australian press uses less motivational frames when reporting on its offshore asylum centre on Nauru than the British press does.
Apart from differences in reporting between Australia and Britain, research finds that the use of frames and the coverage of a particular issue are also dependent on the political allegiance of a media (Kroon et al., 2016). Therefore, this study will also take into account the
amount of news coverage on Australia’s offshore detention centre within left wing and right wing newspapers in Australia and Britain.
The attention of left-wing and right-wing press
Countries such as Australia and Britain show a strong presence of left and right politically aligned media (Moore, 1995; Neumayer, 2004), which presumably implies that different frames are used by each side when communicating the same issue (Robison & Mullinix, 2016). According to Alterman (2008), left-wing press is found to be more ‘apologetic’ in framing policy failures, whereas right-wing press is more defensive of the elite and their decisions. However, scholars also find that in terms of human rights violations the news coverage between left-wing and right-wing media is disproportional, where left-wing media reports significantly more than their counterpart (Moghaddam & Vuksanovic, 1990; Nickels, 2003). Moreover, left-wing media is generally more involved in being critical towards establishments and controversial governmental policies (McChesney & Foster, 2003).
In order to establish how involved the press of both Australia and Britain are in portraying the Nauru matter, so that a comparison between the use of frames can be measured later in research, this study additionally looks into the amount of coverage between the left-wing and right-wing press. Therefore, the following hypothesis is assumed:
H5: Left-wing press in both Australia and Britain reports on Australia’s offshore asylum centre on Nauru considerably more than their right-wing counterparts in both countries.
To analyse the media reporting of Australia’s offshore policy issue on Nauru, a quantitative content analysis was conducted. The design of this research was relational as it made a comparison between different types of frames used within Australian and British press when covering the Nauru topic (Neuendorf, 2002).
The selected time span for this research was approximately four months from 10th August 2016 until 5th December 2016. The choice of dates related to the period when the reports of human rights violations towards refugees on Nauru were leaked to The Guardian on 10th August 2016. Therefore, this event has drawn much closer media attention on Australia’s offshore processing centre on Nauru in the following months. The end date for the data collection was 5th December 2016, and not 10th December 2016, due to the lack of published data on Lexis Nexis for the British press throughout the period of these five days.
Sample and operationalisation
For this study, twelve national newspapers from Australia and Britain were chosen. The selection of newspapers was specifically made according to their high readership in both countries. Additionally, in order to have a more encompassing view of each country’s reporting, both broadsheets and tabloids were selected as well as newspapers from different political allegiance (Riff et al., 2014). The twelve selected newspapers were the independent variables in this study. They were operationalised in a Code Book (Appendix A).
Six Australian newspapers were selected – three quality daily newspapers that included
The Australian (right-wing), The Sydney Morning Herald (claiming to be free from political
Daily Telegraph Sydney (centre-right), Herald Sun (centre-right) and The Newcastle Herald
(claims to be free from political alignment; centre).
For the UK, three leading quality daily newspapers were chosen- The Guardian (centre-left), The Daily Telegraph London (centre-right) and The Independent (claims to be free from political alignment; liberal). The three UK tabloids selected were The Sun (centre-right), The
Mirror (centre-left) and Daily Mail (centre-right).
The data covered 238 articles, accounting for the twelve newspapers in both Australia and Britain. The newspaper articles were collected via Lexis Nexis (http://academic.lexisnexis.eu/). The search terms used were « (Nauru OR Australian asylum
policy + refugees + Australia + human rights) AND length > 100 words ». A question (i.e.
“Does the article relate to Australia’s offshore asylum policy and/or Australia’s offshore
detention centre on Nauru?”) measuring whether an article referred to Australia’s offshore
policy and the Nauru issue was included as a variable in the Code Book. Some articles did not refer to the topic therefore the data was reduced to 215 articles. Among this final sample, 136 articles were coded from Australian newspapers, and 79 were from the British press.
An additional question was created for the independent variable in the Code Book, where each article was coded according to the number of the newspaper source followed by the number of the article. Additionally, variables including the title, page, date and number of words were also employed in relation to the coding of the newspaper articles.
The dependent variables in this study were the media frames. Most particularly, there are
well as six collective action frames selected according to Benford & Snow (2000): victim,
intruder, diagnostic, prognostic, gain/loss and motivational.
The thematic and episodic frames were operationalised with a variable that included a scale from 1 to 9. This scale was developed in a different coding project (an ongoing INC coding project between University of Amsterdam and University of Antwerpen) by Knut De Swert and was similarly applied in this research as well. In this scale, 1 accounted for completely thematic and respectively – 9 for completely episodic, whereas 5 was considered to contain the elements of both frames equally. This is done in order to be more precise on which frame dominated in the article, without having to exclude elements present from the other.
The questions relating to the collective action frames were based on the ones from Benford & Snow (2000). They were specifically modified for this study. Additionally, the collective action frames consisted of three subcategories per frame, where each question was measured with Yes (1) and No (2) answers. Each cluster of these items aimed at covering the different variations of each frame. Additionally, the questions within a frame tried to correspond accordingly to their counterpart (See: Appendix A).
Inter-coder reliability
To test the inter-coder reliability of the Code Book (Appendix A), a second coder was trained and coded 20% of the data (N=41). To assess the agreement between the two coders, Krippendorff’s alpha was found as the most appropriate method (Krippendorff, 2004). The test was performed for each dependent variable (question) individually. The reason for excluding the independent variables (questions) is because they were not numeric and thus,
they could not be calculated using Krippendorff’s alpha. The results showed that the range of Krippendorff’s alpha varied between α = 0.744 - 1.0. According to Krippendorff (2004), the desired range varies between α ≥ .667 – .800, additionally α = 1.0 indicates a perfect reliability. Therefore, the results showed high levels of agreement between the two coders.
Table 1
Agreement (KALPHA) between two independent coders
Variable Krippendorff’s alpha
Thematic/Episodic Frame .999 Victim Frame 1 .952 Victim Frame 2 1.0 Victim Frame 3 1.0 Intruder Frame 1 1.0 Intruder Frame 2 1.0 Intruder Frame 3 1.0 Diagnostic Frame 1 0.744 Diagnostic Frame 2 0.797 Diagnostic Frame 3 0.884 Prognostic Frame 1 1.0 Prognostic Frame 2 1.0 Prognostic Frame 3 1.0 Motivational Frame 1 1.0 Motivational Frame 2 1.0 Motivational Frame 3 1.0 Gain/Loss 1 1.0
Gain/Loss 2 .951
Gain/Loss 2 1.0
Factor analysis
In order to examine the latent structure of the collective action ones on how they were related to each other, a factor analysis was conducted. Furthermore, it was done in order to verify the structure of the measurement. Each component (frame) consisted of a set of three questions. For each frame an Oblique rotation (Direct Oblimin) was used, as it was assumed that the factors (questions) within were related.
The first one was the Victim frame, with questions pertaining to refugees being in affliction, living in poor conditions and subject to human rights abuses. The first factor had an Eigenvalue = 2.41, in which the items explained 80.33% of the total variance.
The second component was the Intruder frame, with questions relating to refugees resorting to illegal actions, taking advantage of the benefits they received and forming a threat to Australia. The first factor had an Eigenvalue = 2.04, in which the items indicated 68.1% of the total variance.
The third component was the Diagnostic frame. It consisted of questions relating to political, socio-economic and human rights causes. The first factor had an Eigenvalue = 1.54, in which the items explained 51.32% of the total variance.
Then, the fourth component was the Prognostic frame. The set of questions related to matters of possible (hypothetical) solutions, foreign cooperation and internal reforms in order
to improve Australia’s offshore policy and poor treatment of refugees on Nauru. The first factor had an Eigenvalue = 1.83, in which the items explained 60.99% of the total variance.
The fifth component was the Motivational frame, with questions concerning condemnations by human rights organisations, protests related to the human rights abuses on Nauru and acts of societal responsibility. The first factor had an Eigenvalue = 1.99, in which the items explained 66.28% of the total variance.
Finally, the sixth component was the Gain/Loss frame. It also entailed questions relating to effects of refugees’ migration throughout the years, political/cultural/economic gains or losses from refugees’ migration and consequences on Australia by refugees that were already granted asylum in the country. The first factor had an Eigenvalue = 1.82, which indicated 60.53% of the total variance.
The PCA showed that the set of questions represent the six latent variables.
Scale reliability
In order to measure the internal consistency of each of the frames, Cronbach’s alpha reliability test was used.
Since the thematic and episodic frames were measured with only one item on a scale from 1 to 9, Cronbach’s alpha was not applied for this variable. However, the scale reliability was assessed for the collective action frames. The results presented below in Table 2 show the reliability for each of the frames.
Table 2
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients of the frames
Item N α Victim 3 .877 Intruder 3 .765 Diagnostic 3 .516 Prognostic 3 .679 Motivational 3 .745 Gain/Loss 3 .670
N, number; α, Cronbach’s alpha
Apart from the diagnostic frame, all others showed good reliability above the threshold of α=.6. The diagnostic frame was found to have a Cronbach’s alpha of .516, which was below the threshold of α=.6. However, if the second item from the diagnostic frame was removed, the reliability of the scale improved to .644, which was considered low but reliable. Therefore, the second item from this frame was removed.
For feasibility in reporting the results, new variables were computed out of each set of questions for each frame, labelled: (1) Victim, (2) Intruder, (3) Diagnostic, (4) Prognostic, (5) Motivational and (6) Gain/Loss. These newly computed variables were used later when conducting the analyses.
Results
The level of measurement for the newspapers (independent variables) was nominal. The measurement level for the collective action frames (dependent variables) was dichotomous (treated as nominal), and continuous (treated as interval) for the thematic/episodic frames
(dependent variables). Therefore, in order to test the H1 assumed for this research, an independent samples t-test was found to be the most appropriate method to be applied. Additionally, Chi-square tests were used in order to compare the frequency of frame usage for
H2a to H4b. Also, a Chi-square test was used for H5 as to determine the coverage of the
Nauru matter between left wing and right wing press.
For H1, it was assumed that British newspapers used more thematic frames and Australian newspapers used more episodic ones when reporting on Australia’s offshore centre on Nauru. An independent samples t-test was conducted in order to compare the usage of thematic and
episodic frames between Australian newspapers and British ones. The test was found to be
statistically significant, t(203) = 8.57, p < .05, 95% CI [2.21, 3.54]; d = .25. The effect size for this analysis (d = .25) suggested small to moderate practical significance according to Cohen’s convention for effect size (Rosenthal, 1994). These results indicated that British newspapers (M = 2.9, SD = 2.27) used more thematic frames and that Australian newspapers (M = 5.82, SD = 2.33) used more episodic ones. Therefore, the findings support the first hypothesis.
In H2a, it was assumed that British newspapers used more victim frames when reporting on Australia’s offshore asylum centre on Nauru than Australian press. A Chi-square test of independence was calculated comparing the frequency of usage of victim frames between Australian and British newspapers. The relationship between these variables was significant,
χ2 (3, 215) = 36.54, p < .05. The results suggested that Australian newspapers and British
ones differed in their usage of victim frames. British newspapers (85%) used more victim frames when reporting on Australia’s offshore asylum centre on Nauru than Australian newspapers did (15%).
In H2b, it was assumed that Australian newspapers used more intruder frames when reporting on Australia’s offshore asylum centre on Nauru than British. Correlations with Chi-square were run to compare the frequency of usage of intruder frames between Australian newspapers and British newspapers. A significant interaction was found, χ2 (3, 215) = 11.99,
p < .05. The results suggested that Australian newspapers and British ones differed in their
usage of intruder frames. Australian newspapers (90%) used more intruder frames when reporting on Australia’s offshore asylum centre on Nauru than British newspapers (10%). Thus, these results supported the second hypothesis.
In H3a, it was assumed that Australian newspapers used more diagnostic frames when reporting on Australia’s offshore asylum centre on Nauru than British press. Correlations with Chi-square were run to compare the frequency of usage of diagnostic frames between Australian newspapers and British newspapers. The relationship between these variables was not significant, χ2 (2, 215) = 9.46, p = .927. The results suggested that the percentage of diagnostic frames employed did not differ per country.
In H3b, it was assumed that British newspapers used more prognostic frames when reporting on Australia’s offshore asylum centre on Nauru than Australian press. A Chi-square test of independence was calculated comparing the frequency of usage of prognostic frames between Australian and British newspapers. The association between these variables was significant,
χ2 (3, 215) = 40.66, p < .05. The results suggested that British newspapers (85%) used more
prognostic frames when reporting on Australia’s offshore asylum centre on Nauru than Australian newspapers (15%). Therefore, these findings partly supported the third hypothesis.
In H4a, it was assumed that British newspapers used more motivational frames when reporting on Australia’s offshore asylum centre on Nauru than Australian press. A Chi-square test of independence was run to compare the usage of motivational frames between Australian
newspapers and British newspapers. A significant interaction was found, χ2 (3, 215) = 25.54,
p < .05. The results suggested that Australian newspapers and British ones differed in their
usage of motivational frames. British newspapers (83%) used more motivational frames when reporting on Australia’s offshore asylum centre on Nauru than Australian newspapers (17%). In H4b, it was assumed that Australian newspapers use more gain/loss frames when reporting on Australia’s offshore asylum centre on Nauru than British press. Correlations with Chi-square were run to compare the usage of gain/loss frames between Australian newspapers and British newspapers. The relationship between these variables was significant, χ2 (3, 215) = 26.61, p < .05. The results suggested that Australian newspapers (91%) used more gain/loss frames when reporting on Australia’s offshore asylum centre on Nauru than British newspapers (9%). Thus, the results clearly supported the fourth hypothesis.
In H5, it was expected that left-wing press in both countries reported more on Australia’s offshore detention centre than right-wing press. Correlations with Chi-square were run to examine the frequency of coverage of left-wing and right-wing newspapers in both Australia and Britain. The relationship between these variables was significant, χ2 (1, 173) = 28.84, p < .05. The results presented in Table 3 suggested that left-wing newspapers differed in the amount of coverage than their right-wing counter part. Left-wing newspapers in both countries, reported considerably more (74%) on Australia’s offshore asylum centre on Nauru than right-wing newspapers did (26%). Therefore, the findings supported the assumed fifth hypothesis.
Table 3
Crosstabulation of Countries and Newspaper Reporting
Allegiance Australia Britain
Left-wing 66 74 32.7** Right-wing 49 4
Note. ** = p < .01.
Conclusion
Extant scientific literature on media’s portrayal of migration issues and asylum policies shows considerable differences in the reporting on these matters and its impact on forming public attitudes (e.g. Levin et al., 1998; Gilboa, 2002; Everland, 2004; Gabrielatos & Baker, 2008; Horsti, 2008). The polarity in media’s representation of these affaires is found to depend on the level of controversy of the topic (Moghaddam & Vuksanovic, 1990), as well as the country’s involvement and the media’s political allegiance (e.g. Arsenault & Castells, 2008; Dunn et al., 2004; Deuze, 2002).
This paper examined the differences in media reporting between Australian and British newspapers on Australia’s asylum policy controversy. Particularly, this research focused on a specific event related to the leaked reports on human rights’ violations of refugees at Australia’s offshore asylum centre on Nauru. The predictions assumed for this study were mostly supported by the findings.
Firstly, thematic frames were more used by British newspapers than Australian ones, where the Nauru case was discussed as a general matter related to Australia’s asylum policy. Concurrently, Australian newspapers were found using more episodic frames than British press when reporting on the same topic (Hypothesis 1). These findings supported Iyengar’s argument that episodic frames singled out a particular event as incidental rather than relating it to a continuous problem or to a governmental failure (Iyengar, 1990). These results also
showed that thematic frames are employed to a greater extent by a country that is more distant to a controversy than of one that is directly involved in such.
Secondly, both victim and intruder frames were used when portraying the treatment of refugees at Nauru (Hypothesis 2). The victim frames dominated the British rhetoric, while the intruder ones were found more within the Australian reporting. These findings supported the theory that media reflects differently on migration topics based on their own cultural values and societal perceptions (Horsti, 2013). The results also indicated how contradictory the views on refugees and their rights can be observed depending on the incident and the situation.
Thirdly, the usage of the diagnostic frame was found not to differ between Australian and British press (Hypothesis 3a). These findings did not support my argument, however they showed that the extent to which media in both countries talk about the causes of this event was similar. Concurrently, the prognostic frame was used more by British newspapers than Australian ones (Hypothesis 3b). These findings indicated that both countries tried to define the problem on Nauru but British press also focused more on seeking solutions. However, the results contradicted Lombardo and Meier’s argument that diagnostic and prognostic frames occurred separately (Lombardo & Meier, 2006). My findings showed that British newspapers used both in their reporting on the same issue. Additionally, it pointed out that Australian press covered the causes of the problem but avoided any mentions of solutions that their government could formulate.
Fourthly, motivational frames were found more employed by the British than the Australian press (Hypothesis 4a). These findings supported the argument of Levin et al. (1998) that motivational frames aim at provoking the public to act by portraying a problem as
societal rather than country-specific. The results of this study showed how British press tried to involve its readers by reporting on Nauru as a societal issue to which everyone was a part of. Alongside, my findings supported the assumption that the gain/loss frames were more employed by Australian press than the British (Hypothesis 4b). These results sustained Benford & Snow’s findings where a side, which is directly involved with an issue, used gain/loss frames (Benford & Snow, 2000). Additionally, Australian newspapers showed to be more concerned with reporting on the consequences for Australian citizens rather than for society in general.
Lastly, this study showed that left-wing media was predominantly more involved in reporting on matters of human rights abuses towards refugees than its right-wing counterpart (Hypothesis 5). On the one hand, these findings showed the strong contribution that left-wing press had in terms of bringing awareness to topics related to migration, asylum controversies and human rights violations. On the other hand, the readers of right-wing press could be less informed on the topic of Australia’s asylum policy and the Nauru issue than the readers of left-wing newspapers. As argued by both Friedman (2009) and Stone (2011), this could contribute to potential problems within the public namely stereotyping, violence, public disputes and general disregard to human rights. Additionally, the predominantly one-sided media representation could lead to biased views on the Nauru topic. An implication for future research is that a comparison of the frame use between the different politically aligned media can be examined.
This research had some limitations. Firstly, the selected data was only for two countries and thus, the findings could not be generalised for others. A cross-national study could be implemented later in research, by including countries such as the US, which during this period negotiated about refugees’ resettling deals with Australia. Moreover, the sample was unequal
between Australia and Britain. That was due primarily to the matter being domestic for Australia and more reported on there. The results of this research are of relevance only to the two countries in terms of the portrayal of matters related to migrants and asylum policies.
Secondly, only a period of four months was chosen for this study, based on the specific event of the leaked reports. Therefore, there is a limited degree to which these results can be generalised to different settings such as other situations involving refugees and asylum policies. With the ongoing events happening in the United States, namely the refugees’ ban (CNN, 2017), my findings might not be applicable to the current reporting of the newspapers in our sample. Both Australian and British press may be influenced by the strong view of the public or their officials’ reactions. Therefore, this may impact the present media portrayal of Australia’s asylum policy as well.
Another shortcoming of this study is its focus only on print press. The reason for excluding online press was due to the limited time and lack of resources to gather all relevant online articles. Additionally, LexisNexis database did not have all online versions of the newspapers selected for this research. Online data could have reinforced the findings as there are more articles published online than print on any given topic (Richardson, 2014). Thus, online press could have expanded the sample. In order to further support the results of frame usage, a recommendation for future research is to include online, as well as other types of media such as broadcasts.
Further limitation was the reliability of the diagnostic frame, which showed to be low. That could have affected the general findings related to this frame, and particularly the lack of significant differences in its usage between Australian and British press. Finally, the questions in the Code Book had only three options per frame and the Code Book itself could have been
more comprehensive. Additionally, to investigate the influence and strength of the frames, a survey experiment to measure public opinion on the Nauru case as well as an extended time span could be incorporated in future research.
Finally, a comparison of the usage of media frames between left-wing newspapers and right-wing ones could be employed in future research.
Ultimately, this study evaluates differences in media reporting on controversial topics related to asylum seekers. Human rights violations are among the most serious matters, for which we mostly learn about from the media. It is well-known and researched that news reporting can reinforce public attitudes (Boomgaarden & Vliegenthart, 2009), especially towards refugees and their rights (Van Gorp, 2007). This study added on understanding different techniques that newspapers used to convey their messages to the public in two well-functioning democracies. Moreover, it showed how contradictory the reporting on asylum topics could be, even if that entails violations of human rights.
References
Aarøe, L. (2011). Investigating frame strength: The case of episodic and thematic frames.
Political Communication, 28(2), 207-226.
Alterman, E. (2008). What liberal media?: The truth about bias and the news. Basic Books. Aly, A. (2007). Australian Muslim responses to the discourse on terrorism in the Australian popular media. Australian Journal of Social Issues, 42(1), 27.
Arsenault, A., & Castells, M. (2008). Switching Power: Rupert Murdoch and the Global Business of Media Politics A Sociological Analysis. International Sociology, 23(4), 488-513.
Ash, E., & Schmierbach, M. (2013). The Effects of Gain and Loss Frames on Perceptions of Racial Inequality. Howard Journal of Communications, 24(1), 38-56.
Austin, C., Fozdar, F. (2016). Framing asylum seekers: the uses of national and cosmopolitan identity frames in arguments about asylum seekers. Global Studies in Culture and Power,
1(1), 1-21.
BBC Global Scan. Retrieved:http://www.globescan.com/news_archives/bbcreut_country.html Benford, R., Snow, A. (2000). Framing Processes and Social Movements: An Overview and Assessment. Annual Review of Sociology, 261(1), 611-639.
Benford, R. D. (1993). Frame disputes within the nuclear disarmament movement. Social
forces, 71(3), 677-701.
Blackmore*, J., & Thomson, P. (2004). Just ‘good and bad news’? Disciplinary imaginaries of head teachers in Australian and English print media. Journal of education policy, 19(3), 301-320.
Boomgaarden H., Vliegenthart R. (2009). How news content influences anti-immigration attitudes: Germany, 1993–2005. European Journal of Political Research 48(4), 516–542. Burnett, J. (2013). Britain: racial violence and the politics of hate. Race & Class, 54(4), 5-21. Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annu. Rev. Polit. Sci., 10, 103-126. Collins, J. (2007). Immigrants as victims of crime and criminal justice discourse in Australia.
International Review of Victimology, 14(1), 57-79.
Cooper, S., Olejniczak, E., Lenette, C., & Smedley, C. (2016). Media coverage of refugees and asylum seekers in regional Australia: a critical discourse analysis. Media International
Australia,132-166.
Cully, M., & Pejoski, L. (2012). Australia unbound? Migration, openness and population futures. A greater Australia: population, policies and governance.
Deuze, M. (2002). National news cultures: A comparison of Dutch, German, British, Australian, and US journalists. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 79(1), 134-149.
De Dreu, C. D., & McCusker, C. (1997). Gain–loss frames and cooperation in two-person social dilemmas: A transformational analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
72(5), 1093.
De Dreu, C. D., Emans, B. J. M., Vliert, E., & Carnevale, P. J. (1994). Effects of gain-loss frames in negotiation: Loss aversion, mismatching, and frame adoption. Organizational
behavior and human decision processes, 60, 90-107.
De Vreese, C., Jochen, P., Holli A., Semetko, C. (2001). Framing politics at the launch of the Euro: A cross-national comparative study of frames in the news. Political communication,
18(2), 107-122.
Dickson, A. (2015). Distancing Asylum Seekers from the State: Australia's evolving political geography of immigration and border control. Australian Geographer, 46(4), 437-454. Dunn, K. M., Forrest, J., Burnley, I., & McDonald, A. (2004). Constructing racism in Australia. Australian journal of social issues, 39(4), 409.
Entman, R. M. (1993). Framing: Toward clarification of a fractured paradigm. Journal of
communication, 43(4), 51-58.
Essex, R. (2016). Children in Australia's immigration centres. The Lancet, 387(10031), 1903. Everland, Jr, W. P. (2004). The effect of political discussion in producing informed citizens: The roles of information, motivation, and elaboration. Political Communication,, 21(2), 177-193.
Fazel, M., Wheeler, J., & Danesh, J. (2005). Prevalence of serious mental disorder in 7000 refugees resettled in western countries: a systematic review. The Lancet, 365(9467), 1309-1314.
Figures at a glance. Retrieved from: http://www.unhcr.org/en-us/figures-at-a-glance.html Fleay, C., Hoffman, Sue. (2014). Despair as a Governing Strategy: Australia and the Offshore Processing of Asylum-Seekers on Nauru. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 33(2), 1-19.
Friedman, J. (2009). A crisis of politics, not economics: Complexity, ignorance, and policy failure. Critical Review, 21(2-3), 127-183.
Gabrielatos, C., & Baker, P. (2008). Fleeing, Sneaking, Flooding A Corpus Analysis of Discursive Constructions of Refugees and Asylum Seekers in the UK Press, 1996-2005.
Journal of English linguistics, 36(1), 5-38.
Gilboa, E. (2002). Media and conflict: framing issues, making policy, shaping opinions, Ardsley, NY: Transnational Publishers.
Griffen-Foley, B. (2010). Australian Commercial Radio, American Influences—and The BBC. Historical Journal of Film, Radio and Television, 30(3), 337-355.
Gross, K. (2008). Framing persuasive appeals: Episodic and thematic framing, emotional response, and policy opinion. Political Psychology, 29(2), 169-192.
Hart, P. S. (2010). One or many? The influence of episodic and thematic climate change frames on policy preferences and individual behavior change. Science Communication. Haunss, S. (2007). Challenging legitimacy: Repertoires of contention, political
claims-making, and collective action frames. In Legitimacy in an age of global politics (pp. 156-172). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
Hercus, C. (1999). Identity, emotion, and feminist collective action. Gender & Society, 13(1), 34-55.
Hodge, P. (2015). A grievable life? The criminalisation and securing of asylum seeker bodies in the ‘violent frames’ of Australia’s Operation Sovereign Borders. Geoforum, 58(1), 122-131.
Höllinger, F., & Haller, M. (1990). Kinship and social networks in modern societies: A cross-cultural comparison among seven nations. European Sociological Review, 6(2), 103-124.
Horsti, K. (2013). De-ethnicized victims: Mediatized advocacy for asylum seekers.
Journalism,14(1), 78-95.
Horsti, K. (2007). Asylum seekers in the news: Frames of illegality and control. Observatorio
(OBS) Journal, 1, 145-161.
Isaacs, D. (2015). Nauru and detention of children. Journal of paediatrics and child health,
51(4), 353-354.
Iyengar, S. (1990). Framing responsibility for political issues: the case of poverty. Political
behaviour, 12(1). 19-40.
Jupp, J. (1995). From 'White Australia' to 'part of Asia': recent shifts in Australian immigration policy towards the region. International Migration Review, 207-228.
KhosraviNik, M. (2009). The representation of refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants in British newspapers during the Balkan conflict (1999) and the British general election (2005).
Discourse & Society, 20(4), 477-498.
Kaye, R. (1998). Redefining the refugee: the UK media portrayal of asylum seekers. In The
New Migration in Europe (pp. 163-182). Palgrave Macmillan UK.
KhosraviNik, M. (2010). The representation of refugees, asylum seekers and immigrants in British newspapers: A critical discourse analysis. Journal of Language and Politics, 9(1), 1-28.
Kitzinger, J. (2007). Framing and frame analysis. Media studies: Key issues and debates, 134-161.
Kroon, A. C., Kluknavská, A., Vliegenthart, R., & Boomgaarden, H. G. (2016). Victims or perpetrators? Explaining media framing of Roma across Europe. European Journal of
Communication, 0267323116647235
Krippendorff, K. (2004). Content analysis: An introduction to its methodology. Sage.
Kubal, T. J. (1998). The presentation of political self. The Sociological Quarterly, 39(4), 539-554.
Lancaster, K., Duke, K., & Ritter, A. (2015). Producing the ‘problem of drugs’: A cross national-comparison of ‘recovery’discourse in two Australian and British reports.
International Journal of Drug Policy, 26(7), 617-625.
L'Espérance, A. (2012). Mary Crock et Laurie Berg Immigration, Refugees and Forced Migration: Law, Policy and Practice in Australia. Canadian Journal of Law and Society,
27(2), 282-286.
Levin, I. P., Schneider, S. L., & Gaeth, G. J. (1998). All frames are not created equal: A typology and critical analysis of framing effects. Organizational behavior and human
decision processes, 76(2), 149-188.
Loescher, G. (1996). Beyond Charity: International Cooperation and the Global Refugee
Crisis: A Twentieth Century Fund Book. Oxford University Press.
Lombardo, E., & Meier, P. (2006). Gender Mainstreaming in the EU Incorporating a Feminist Reading?. European Journal of Women's Studies, 13(2), 151-166.
Luke, C. (1999). Media and cultural studies in Australia. Journal of Adolescent & Adult
Literacy, 42(8), 622.
Maley, W. (2001). Security, people-smuggling, and Australia's new Afghan refugees.
Australian Journal of International Affairs, 55(3), 351-370.
Manderson, D. R. (2013). From Zero Tolerance to Harm Reduction:“The Asylum Problem Problem”. Refugee Survey Quarterly, 11-19.
Mastin, T., Choi, J., Barboza, G. E., & Post, L. (2007). Newspapers' framing of elder abuse: It's not a family affair. Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, 84(4), 777-794. McChesney, R. W., & Foster, J. B. (2003). The ‘left-wing’media. Monthly Review, 55(2), 1-16.
Moghaddam, F. M., & Vuksanovic, V. (1990). Attitudes and Behavior Toward Human Rights Across Different Contexts the Role of Right-Wing Authoritarianism, Political Ideology, and Religiosity. International Journal of Psychology, 25(2), 455-474.
Moore, A. (1995). The Right Road?: A History of Right Wing Politics in Australia. Oxford University Press.
Most Aussies Don’t Trust Media Professionals (2014). Retrieved:
http://www.roymorgan.com/findings/5544-most-aussies-dont-trust-media-professionals-201404170003
Neuendorf, K.A. (2002). The content analysis guidebook. Thousan Oaks, Clarifornia: Sage Publications.
Neumayer, E. (2004). The environment, left-wing political orientation and ecological economics. Ecological economics, 51(3), 167-175.
Nickels, H. (2003). The framing of asylum question at the level of policy. Journal of
Research and Problem Solving in Organizational Communication, 3(3), 228-237.
O’Keefe, J. (2007). Potential Conflicts between Normatively-Responsible Advocacy and Successful Social Influence: Evidence from Persuasion Effects Research. Argumentation,
21(2), 151-163.
Papacharissi, Z., & de Fatima Oliveira, M. (2008). News frames terrorism: A comparative analysis of frames employed in terrorism coverage in US and UK newspapers. The
International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(1), 52-74.
Polletta, F., & Jasper, J. M. (2001). Collective identity and social movements. Annual review
of Sociology, 283-305.
Richardson, J. (2014) Roma in the news: An examination of media and political discourse and what needs to change. People, Place and Policy 8(1): 55–64.
Riff, D., Lacy, S., & Fico, F. (2014). Analyzing media messages: Using quantitative content
analysis in research. Routledge.
Robison, J., & Mullinix, K. J. (2016). Elite polarization and public opinion: How polarization is communicated and its effects. Political Communication, 33(2), 261-282.
Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. The handbook of research synthesis, 231-244.
Scheufele, D. A. (1999). Framing as a theory of media effects. Journal of communication,
49(1), 103-122.
Schon, D. A., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Towards the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.
Sheafer, T., & Gabay, I. (2009). Mediated public diplomacy: A strategic contest over
international agenda building and frame building. Political Communication, 26(4), 447-467. Semetko, A., Valkenburg. M. (2000). Framing European politics: a content analysis of press and television news. Journal of Communication, 50(2), 93–109.
Spence, L. K. (2010). Episodic frames, HIV/AIDS, and African American public opinion.
Political Research Quarterly, 63(2), 257-268.
Stone, D. F. (2011). Ideological media bias. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization,
78(3), 256-271.
Taylor, S., & Rafferty-Brown, B. (2010). Waiting for Life to Begin: the Plight of Asylum Seekers Caught by Australia's Indonesian Solution. International Journal of Refugee Law, 22-34.
The Nauru files: 2000 leaked reports reveal scale of abuse of children in Australian offshore detention. Retrieved from: https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/10/the- nauru-files-2000-leaked-reports-reveal-scale-of-abuse-of-children-in-australian-offshore-detention
Thorbjørnsrud, K. (2015). Framing irregular immigration in Western media. American
Behavioral Scientist, 59(7), 771-782.
Trump’s Latest Executive Order: Banning people from 7 countries and more. Retrieved: http://edition.cnn.com/2017/01/27/politics/donald-trump-refugees-executive-order/ Van Gorp, B. (2005) Where is the frame? Victims and intruders in the Belgian press
coverage of the asylum issue. European Journal of Communication, 20(4), 484- 507.
Van Gorp, B. (2007). The constructionist approach to framing: Bringing culture back in.
Journal of communication, 57(1), 60-78.
Van Gorp, B. (2010). Strategies to take subjectivity out of framing analysis. Doing news
framing analysis: Empirical and theoretical perspectives, 84-109.
Vicari, S. (2010). Measuring collective action frames: A linguistic approach to frame analysis.
Poetics, 38(5), 504-525.
Vossen, M., Gorp, B., & Schulpen, L. (2016). In Search of the Pitiful Victim: A Frame Analysis of Dutch, Flemish and British Newspapers and NGO‐ Advertisements. Journal of
International Development, 32-49.
Wahlström, M., Wennerhag, M., & Rootes, C. (2013). Framing “the climate issue”: patterns of participation and prognostic frames among climate summit protesters. Global
Environmental Politics, 13(4), 101-122.
Wu, D.H. (2000). Systemic Determinants of International News Coverage: A Comparison of 38 countries. Journal of Communication, Spring, 110-130.
Appendix A
Codebook Nauru. Version 1 (24/11/2016)1
Variables: general
V1. Coder
1Some of the questions in this Code Book are a modified version of questions from a Code Book used in a
1= Petya 2= Emilie
V2. Newspaper 01= The Australian
02= The Sydney Morning Herald 03= The Age
04= The Daily Telegraph (Sydney) 05= Herald Sun
06= The Newcastle Herald 07= The Guardian
08= The Daily Telegraph (London) 09= The Independent
10= The Sun 11= The Mirror 12= Daily Mail
Article Number: Number of the article. Use the number of the newspaper followed by the number of the article in that sample. Use the double digits for every article. For example, article number 5 of The Sydney Morning Herald will be “0205”. Article 11 of The Sun will be 1011.
V3. Date (dd/mm/yyyy)
V5. Page number. Enter the number of the page of the article. For example: “7” or “35”. In case that the page number is not indicated, enter “00”.
V6. Word count. Enter the number of words that the article consists of. If the number of words is missing, enter “00”.
V7. News story selection: what is the news story?
This variable indicated the genre to which the article belongs. The categories listed are based and adapted according to the article from Van Gorp (2004).
1. General news story. This is the most common news item where the article has a clear headline, introduction and an informative body text.
2. Editorial news story. This news item includes opinion, analysis and/or columns by the editor.
3. External opinion. This includes third party opinions, and/or opinions written by unaffiliated with the newspapers’ staff. It also includes letters to the editor.
4. Interview. This includes articles of any interview genre.
5. Other. This is category includes news items from all other genres such as cartoons, satire or any unclear/unspecified journalistic genre. In general, in case of doubt, it is advisable to select this category.
NB: Picture captions do not need to be coded
V7. Topic. The topic of the article should be about Australia’s offshore centre on Nauru and/or relate to Australia’s offshore asylum policy in general, with the mentions of Nauru. If the article relates only to the refugee crisis in general, then this should be coded with 0= No. The questions will then end.
